Talk: The New Essential Chronology

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

I have some doubts about how much we should to accept about the NEC. Please understand that while at no time I advocate dismissing it as canon, I believe that it causes far too many contradictions. First, the fact that the Infinite Empire possessed a foothold in the Core Worlds is to suspect for me to find credible. The fact that they held Core Founders is not in of itself strange. The fact that these planets seem to posses no knowledge of it is. The method of Coruscant's colonization efforts, sleeper ships which the Rakata just happened to not notice is totally implausible. A race which builds something like the Star Forge yet doesn't notice some capital ships leaving is almost laughable. Also, why would the Rakata leave Coruscant as an ecumenopolis? wouldn't that leave too many places for slaves to hide?

Finally, I find it doubtful, almost offensive, that the Hutts were members of the Galactic Republic. The economy of Hutt Space is dependent on criminal activity, and the Republic would have atlest tried to stop the Spice and Weapons being exported. The fact that the average Hutt seems to have an intense hatred of the Jedi Order also causes me to doubt it. Now, I realize that Del Rey's attitude toward the Bantam continuity is dismissive at best (and contemptuous at worst) I have to raise issues of the credibility of this peice. While I'm well aware that one cannot chose whatever they want as canon (and have stated so myself on several occasions) I simply wanted to point out some reasons why we may want to be cautious as to how much credibility we should give this. That's just my thoughts. I had tried to bring it up on their individual talk pages, but nobody answered my questions. -- SFH 03:21, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've only used the more "credible" stuff from it. (IE: Vader's missions as a form of distraction) I was thinking about adding the Death Star stuff in, but I think that's a bit too convoluted. And it's confusing as it is. TIEPilot051999 04:20, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere is it stated that that the Hutts were members of the Republic. A Hutt served as Chancellor, but that doesn't mean his entire species were members of the Republic. QuentinGeorge 06:38, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, the earlier Sith timeline caused massive problems, particularly in light of the new info revealed in KOTOR II, since we had Ancient Sith Lords running around with lightsabers that weren't invented by the previous timeline. I'm not sure why 7,000 BBY is any "less plausible" than 25,000 BBY. QuentinGeorge 06:23, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that the new info is attempt to reconcile various contradictory information about the Sith. Wallace didn't just change because he felt like it.

Yes, the Sith timeline may have been changed in order to fix KOTOR II problems. And the Hutts may have had some sort of membership during that period, but ended up leaving after one of the galaxy-shattering Sith Wars without being invited back...on the other hand, Ubese history is a bit of a mess now. I think any attempt at a complete continuity will end up with retcons and inconsistencies, anyway. — Silly Dan 12:41, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Please understand, it's not about anyone being "dismissive of Bantam continuity". The EU has grown so much, and, with the information from Episodes I-III, NJO and the KOTOR games, certain things we took for granted are no longer accurate. QuentinGeorge 06:29, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

If you look here] you can certainly see that the author did his research. QuentinGeorge 06:40, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you're right...It's just everything that we once knew about the Star Wars universe is changing, too much in my opinion. And notice that I never said that the authors changed this intentionally. I said Del Rey, which seems to act (in my opinion) that the entire EU is merely a prelude to Vector Prime. -- SFH 16:33, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

If Del Rey's the source for the idea that the Yuuzhan Vong War did more damage than the Sith Wars, the Clone Wars, and the Galactic Civil War put together, then I have to agree with you there. They even seem to have made the movies a prelude to the NJO...but this is perhaps not the place to complain at length about that. 8) — Silly Dan 16:37, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice how the armor of the Republic soldiers in the illustration of the Sith invasion of Coruscant (5000 B.B.Y.) are taken straight from the 2nd and 3rd age Gondorian armor from Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings? Anonymous

Contents

On the Sith - The 7000 BBY year date came from LFL internal documents. Since other sources had implied a formation of the Sith (or at least the existence of Dark Jedi) at 25,000 BBY, I included that too. Xendor, Arden Lyn, and the Legions of Lettow is a slight retconning of earlier EU elements.

On Sleeper Ships - Regarding the Rakata and sleeper ships, I don't have an official fix, but you're right that it's an issue that raises its head given the official dates of 27,500 BBY for the colonization of Alderaan and 25,200 BBY for the collapse of the Rakatan Empire. I would suggest that Rakatan rule over Coruscant and their other holdings waxed and waned over the centuries, with internal conflicts causing them to sometimes turn a blind eye to the doings of their colonies.

Well, the problem is that there's a lot of disagreements going on with continuity so far, and while not exactly at the DC and Marvel comic level of disjunction, retconning is going to be somewhat inevitable, especially since the prequel trilogy messed things up (which is admittedly a weird way of phrasing things since it is Lucas's own creation, and he's free to do whatever, but it did dislodge a lot of previous ideas). It's an admirable attempt, though people will probably disagree as to what material should be kept.

Is the New Essential Chronology written from an in-universe perspective? Like, Voren Na'al wrote this and a character in the SW Universe could pick up a copy and read it? If so, it strikes me as a bit odd that Darth Sidious is known to be Palpatine - he pretty much kept it secret that he was Sidious to everyone except a few chosen few, and it was pretty much unknown he had any Force powers. Even then, all the people who knew he was Sidious are pretty much dead now.. as far as the galaxy was concerned, Palpatine was nothing more than the Republic's elected Supreme Chancellor who transformed it into the Empire in the wake of an awful war. Unless I'm missing something here? -Danik Kreldin 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Just one more inconsistency.In the NEC's "Escape from Rattatak" article said that "Obi-Wan joked that Alpha should give the clones real names, and Alpha took him at his word". But in the DH comic novel, "No Man's Land" (that's obvious a source for the NEC's article), it was Anakin Skywalker, who told Alpha "small suggestion" - assign names to the new branch of clone commanders, cause "in the middle of battle, 1456724 doesn't always come right to mind". -- SAM 23:10, 02 Feb 2008

This may seem stupid, but 1-How did Qui-Gon sense anakin before or on Tatooine? 2-Whats the consensus on Plagueis creating Anakain? If he did not create anakin, which how was Sidious able to track Anakin on Tatoonie? Izquierdista 17:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we track in the Behind the Scenes section of this pagethe legitimate inaccuracies? Like, the ones that can't be argued away but that are just plain wrong? For example, in the section about the Sith Civil War, it mentioned 4 Dark Lords of the Sith who rise up to take Revan's place, including "Darth Kreia and Darth Traya". This is obviously wrong. There are undoubtedly more like this in the book. Should we put those on the BoS section? Thank you.Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 15:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)